PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AGRW vs. IBIC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AGRW vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGRW achieves a 8.77% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.37% return.


AGRW

1D
-1.69%
1M
7.09%
YTD
8.77%
6M
8.21%
1Y
23.16%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

IBIC

1D
0.02%
1M
0.27%
YTD
2.37%
6M
2.51%
1Y
4.54%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGRW vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between AGRW and IBIC is -0.25, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2025

-0.27

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AGRW vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AGRW
AGRW Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
AGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
AGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
AGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
AGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank

IBIC
IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AGRW vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


AGRWIBICDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-7.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

2.24

-0.98

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.41

17.27

-15.86

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.73

67.45

-62.72

AGRW vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGRW Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 5.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGRW and IBIC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AGRWIBICDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.46

5.05

-3.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.28

3.49

-2.21

Drawdowns

AGRW vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGRW drawdown since its inception was -16.46%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGRW and IBIC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AGRWIBICDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.46%

-0.90%

-15.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.46%

-0.26%

-16.20%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.36%

-0.13%

-2.23%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.28%

-0.10%

-3.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.91%

0.07%

+4.84%

Volatility

AGRW vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) has a higher volatility of 4.34% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.33%. This indicates that AGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AGRWIBICDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.34%

0.33%

+4.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

0.67%

+11.77%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.91%

0.90%

+15.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.99%

1.58%

+20.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.99%

1.58%

+20.41%

AGRW vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGRW has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

AGRW vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

AGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than IBIC's 3.59% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
AGRW
Allspring LT Large Growth ETF
0.12%0.13%0.00%0.00%
IBIC
iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF
3.59%4.43%4.65%0.83%

Frequently Asked Questions


AGRW and IBIC have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AGRW has higher volatility (4.34%) compared to IBIC (0.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRW dropped -16.46% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

On 1-year performance, AGRW leads with 23.16% vs 4.54% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, AGRW has performed better with a 23.16% return vs 4.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for AGRW.

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 0.12% for AGRW.

AGRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Allspring and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AGRW and 0.10% for IBIC.

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.05 vs 1.46), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AGRW and IBIC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer